The recent discussion in the blogosphere about hawkish liberalism, sparked by Peter Beinart's editorial in The New Republic on the subject,
A Fighting Faith, has interested me greatly. I am not a hawk; at least I do not think I am. I do, however, consider myself an interventionist, and I believe that the American left does in fact need to become more openly interventionist. Let me run down a list of recent instances when I supported military action:
- As a lefty high school teenager, I wasn't sure about the first Gulf War. It seemed like something I should oppose, but for the life of me I couldn't think of a reason to oppose it. Sure, I was opposed to certain elements of it: attacking as early as we did rather than waiting a few months, using a heavy air campaign that needlessly cost tens of thousands of civilian lives, not supporting the Iraqi insurgency that rose up against Hussein following the war. However, an entire nation--a full voting nation of the U.N. I might add--had been attacked, conquered, and annexed by an opposing country. That had not happened since China and Tibet. Had our coalition, with Security Council authorization, not restored the government of a full voting member of the U.N., then not only was the U.N. a sham, not only would we be accepting the right of Kuwaitis to have a country but any hope of future international action against such an event would have been dead. The U.N. would have ceased to exist, and rightfully so.
- In the early nineties, I remember in college how I used to get into fights with my liberal friends over my belief that we needed to immediately intervene in the former Yugoslavia. It was growing increasing clear that genocide was taking place, and calls for ethnic cleansing and a Greater Serbia were being backed up with actual military power. I remember especially heated arguments with my older brother and long-time girlfriend over this. They claimed non-violence was always the answer. I claimed that, in this circumstance, it most definitely was not. I felt exactly the same way about Kosovo in 1999, which I always supported. What few lefty outcries there were against both wars (most actually came from the right), rang completely hollow to me. People were seriously arguing that stopping genocide was unjustified because we were killing a much smaller number of civilians with our bombing raids? People were seriously arguing that we shouldn't intervene because we didn't understand the culture and history of the region? I could not stomach such arguments.
- I was angered to no end about the lack of international intervention in Rwanda and Burundi. I even offered a public prayer in the Catholic church my family attends in Liverpool, New York--the last time I ever did such a thing--that world leaders would have the vision to identify genocide when they see it, and the courage to take the action necessary to stop it. When we did nothing, it quickly led toward my complete lack of faith in both political parties, and my resulting seven-to-eight stint year with radical politics.
- I supported the long over-due actions to stop the genocide in East Timor.
- By the 1997, after following the developing gains made by the Taliban in Afghanistan, I was also openly calling for military intervention there. Needless to say, when we finally did something in 2001, I was not opposed at all.
I was aware of all of the instances where I supported military intervention against a government that the United States had actively supported during the Cold War. While I accepted that reduced our claim to moral legitimacy in these areas, I did not believe that it served as an acceptable justification to not undertake the actions. I simply do not accept an argument that because we lack complete moral legitimacy, that we are more justified in letting atrocities occur than in stopping them.
However, even though I was pro-military intervention in all of these instances, I was, and remain, deeply opposed to the war in Iraq. I remain solidly in favor of immediate withdrawal of all our forces from the country. We did not stop genocide or invasion of another country by invading Iraq. Instead, we caused massive damage to the local civilian population, as it was clear from the start that we would. We did not save American lives by invading Iraq, as we have ended over 1,200 American lives and irreparably damaged tens of thousands more. Our occupation is not doing the country any good--it is simply fueling the fires of a totalitarian insurgency. Our invasion of Iraq is not bringing Democracy to the region, but instead restricting our ability to fight genocide in areas such as the Sudan. I do not believe that it is possible for a foreign nation to bring Democracy to a country through force of arms, particularly when a country has no recent history with Democracy. By invading Iraq, we have done massive harm to ourselves, the Iraqis, and have reduced our ability to do good in other places, such as Sudan. We need to get out now.
While I believe in aggressive, interventionist liberalism, not only am I opposed to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, I am also opposed to the "war on terror," for reasons I will explain below. This is specifically where I depart from writers such as Beinart and Kevin Drum. We don't need to join the "war on terror," which is not something natural, but is instead a Republican talking point developed by White House speechwriters in the months following September 11th. There is nothing natural, or even positive about this "war," and we must oppose it. If we use the language and take up the same crusades as our opponents, we will lose every time while simultaneously becoming just as corrupt and destructive as they are. Instead, we need to take up a broader war against totalitarianism--all forms of totalitarianism, not just Islamic forms--because it is something that is not only just, but because it is part of our values to do so.
I also have many problems with the implied argument in much of Beinart's piece. Essentially, at several points in the piece Beinart seems to be arguing that liberals should support every single action that is taken in the name of opposing Islamic totalitarianism no matter how ineffective or damaging that action is in even achieving the goals of that misguided crusade, in order to give the impression that liberals are willing to be aggressive in defeating "terrorism." The Iraq war was "bungled," Beinart writes. He notes "Cheney's false claims about Iraqi WMD" and argues "Bush's war on terrorism became a partisan affair." Beinart thus argues that the primary justification for the war was false, that the planning was horrible, and that the war on terror is an electoral gimmick. However, Beinart also clearly implies, opposing the Iraqi war it in any form is a bad idea because it gives the impression that we do not want to do more against totalitarianism, and this cost Democrats on November 2nd:
Kerry's vote against the $87 billion helped him lure back the liberal activists he needed to win Iowa, and Iowa catapulted him toward the nomination. But the vote came back to haunt him in two ways. Most obviously, it helped the Bush campaign paint him as unprincipled. But, more subtly, it made it harder for Kerry to ask Americans to sacrifice in a global campaign for freedom. Biden could suggest "a new program of national service" and other measures to "spread the cost and hardship of the war on terror beyond our soldiers and their families." But, whenever Kerry flirted with asking Americans to do more to meet America's new threat, he found himself limited by his prior emphasis on doing less. At times, he said his primary focus in Iraq would be bringing American troops home. He called for expanding the military but pledged that none of the new troops would go to Iraq, the new center of the terror war, where he had said American forces were undermanned. Kerry's criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy were trenchant, but the only alternative principle he clearly articulated was multilateralism, which often sounded like a veiled way of asking Americans to do less. And, because he never urged a national mobilization for safety and freedom, his discussion of terrorism lacked Bush's grandeur. That wasn't an accident. Had Kerry aggressively championed a national mobilization to win the war on terrorism, he wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee.
Beinart probably is not wrong about the impression that these actions give, but supporting them, which Beinart clearly think would have been a good idea in the election, no matter how ineffective they are, is not the solution.
The solution is also not, as Kevin Drum notes, to simply demand that liberals become more aggressive in "the war on terror." Before telling liberals that should become more aggressive in the war on terror, you need to tell liberals why becoming more aggressive on the war on terror is a liberal value, rather than just an issue of electability:
That's the story I think Beinart needs to write. If he thinks too many liberals are squishy on terrorism, he needs to persuade us not just that Islamic totalitarianism is bad -- of course it's bad -- but that it's also an overwhelming danger to the security of the United States. After all:
- Subsequent to 9/11, virtually no Americans have died from terrorist acts. Rather, American deaths have been caused by our own war of choice in Iraq -- a country that has turned out to possess no WMD and have virtually no serious connection to al-Qaeda.
- For all his tough talk, the president of the United States has tacitly admitted that he doesn't feel this war is important enough to require any sacrifice on the part of the American citizenry.
- The Republican party has made it as clear as it possibly can that the war on terror is not vital enough to require either bipartisan support or the support of the rest of the world. They've treated it more like a garden variety electoral wedge issue than a world historical struggle.
- Things like Tom Ridge's sales pitch for duct tape, along with the transparently political color coded terror levels, have made the war on terror fodder for late night TV. It's entirely predictable that anyone who was even a bit skeptical in 2002 now views the war as trivial at best, and comical or Machiavellian at worst.
It's arguable that liberals are foolish to let all this prevent them from seeing the totalitarian danger for what it is. But it's hardly surprising. The fact is that compared to fascism and communism, Islamic totalitarianism seems like pretty thin beer to many. It's not fundamentally expansionist, and its power to kill people isn't even remotely in the same league.
Kevin Drum is right. The case for engaging in a large-scale national effort against "Islamofascism" and/or "terrorism" has not been made to liberals, at lest not on liberal grounds. Thus, simply demanding that they abandon deeply held principle in order to win elections is no going to get you very far. First, the case needs to be made to them in terms of their own values.
However, I would go a step further than Drum, and much further than Beinart. I would argue that the case for marshalling our national resources in a great crusade against "Islamofascism" and / or "terrorism" can never be made to liberals because there is a clearly larger, more threatening international force that a much better case can be made for us to marshal our national resources against: totalitarianism itself / totalitarianism in general. A war against Islamofascism is both hollow and bigoted primarily because it only identifies Islamic forms, or possible forms, of fascism as worth fighting, but non-Islamic ones as no threat and worthy of most favored trade status. The obvious bigotry of the war against terror and Islamofascism is something that will never appeal to liberals, because of the obvious contradictions and tolerance of other forms of totalitarianism it permits. A war against Islamofascism and / or terrorism is hollow because it lets China and North Korea off the hook, no matter how many "Axis of Evil" speeches we make. A war against terrorism is hollow because it identifies organizations such as Al-Qaeda as a threat, but totalitarian, terrorist supporting regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan as allies. A war against Islamofascism and / or terrorism is hollow because it does not include Sudan, as the people being slaughtered there are being slaughtered primarily for the color of their skin rather than their religion (the majority of both the killers and the killed are Muslims). What great moral crusade are we taking up when the Saudi Royal family is one of our allies? What great crusade are we taking up when democratic France becomes our enemy? What great crusade are we taking up when we allow our jobs to be exported to China? No one can ever make that case to liberals, because a war against Islamofascism and / or terrorism is not a great crusade, but rather a Republican talking point and a thoroughly contradictory and bigoted enterprise. A war against all forms of totalitarianism, which would necessarily include regimes like the Taliban, would be a great crusade for which an argument could be made.
So, instead of being told that opposing idiotic moves by the Bush administration makes us look weak, and instead of trying to convince us all that we should join in the hollow, bigoted, and partisan war on terror either for electoral purposes or for its own sake, I have a better idea. Let's take up a hawkish, interventionist stance against something far more dangerous than Islamofascism and / or terrorism: totalitarianism itself. We need to propose a series of aggressive anti-totalitarian measures, the sort of sweeping, justifiable actions that are not only potentially effective, but also are things that conservatives could never tolerate:
- End diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia on the grounds that it funds terrorism, was complicit in the 9-11 attacks.
- End most favorable trade status with China, and even consider sanctions.
- Immediately create a doctrine where the US will militarily intervene to stop genocide anywhere in the world, with international assistance or without it.
- A massive expansion, perhaps ten fold, of the Peace Corps and foreign aid.
- Maintain an active policy of containment against existing totalitarian regimes, including aggressive funding and training of democratic opposition groups.
Conservative love for oil, endless corporate trade with tyrants, and hatred of activist do-gooders could never tolerate such positions. However, these ideas fit very well with liberal concerns to stop genocide, to protect civilian life and liberty with minimal use of American force, to free us of our dependence on oil, to oppose illegitimate forms of authority, to protect unions instead of tyrant loving corporations, and to defend human rights everywhere in the world, including in nations with which we are "allied." Place positions of this nature front and center as part of a permanent American war against international totalitarianism, and then you can make the appeal to our values, energize both us and the nation, and become more electable.
These proposals form the outline of an n aggressive, interventionist, liberal movement to protect freedom worldwide that I could get behind. Just don't ever try and convince me that we need to join up with the bigoted, cynical, Republican talking-point war against terrorism. Someone with my values cannot tolerate the endless contradictions and bigotries of the conservative "war on terror". We can't attack some forms of totalitarianism as worthy of a national crusade, and others as worthy place to manufacture our shoes, fill our gas tanks, and to fight with us side by side on the ground in foreign lands. We cannot single out certain forms of intolerance and accept others. Don't make the case to liberals for aggressive, interventionist liberalism by using conservative ideas like the "war on terrorism." Make they case for aggressive, liberal interventionism to liberals using our values. I have a feeling someone who tries this will have a lot of success.
